collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2020-2021 SOTG Tally


2020-21 Season SoG Tally
Cain3
Carton3
Garcia3
Lewis2
John1
McEwen1

'19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Marquette No. 83 In New US News Ranking by Billy Hoyle
[Today at 03:33:32 PM]


Marquette NBA Thread by Fluffy Blue Monster
[Today at 12:37:39 PM]


Recruiting as of 9/15/21 by Herman Cain
[Today at 09:47:01 AM]


Fr. Kelly Memorial Service by Newsdreams
[September 19, 2021, 09:19:56 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: The long cold summer

Marquette
Marquette

Madness

Date/Time: Oct 15, 2021, 6:00pm?
TV: NA
Schedule for 2019-20
13-14

Author Topic: [Cracked Sidewalks] Guest post: Marquette, pace and the rest of the schedule  (Read 4799 times)

CrackedSidewalksSays

  • Guest
Guest post:  Marquette, pace and the rest of the schedule

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Tim Blair)

The time has come to head back to math class and take a hard look at this year's Marquette basketball team and we're pleased to welcome the inimitable Dr. Blackheart back to Cracked Sidewalks for another guest post.

To a degree today's post builds on Dr. Blackheart's recent look at MU's defense. Yes, the good doctor's expertise is habit-forming.  Thanks again, Doc.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Possessed

From the bar stools of Old World Third Street and the Third Ward to the keyboards of the interwebs, every MU fan with a right index finger (to order the next round or to hunt ‘n peck for that second exclamation point) has anointed themselves the next “Coach in Waiting” based upon their theories about MU’s defense.  According to Statsheet, our vaunted Warriors are #1 in Big East play in offensive efficiency (1.18 PPP).  MU can “tickle the twine” like no other in a tough, tough conference with great, experienced coaches who know how to shut a team down.  Conversely, our defensive efficiency of 1.09 PPP is second to last, tied with a few conference standing bottom feeders after DePaul.

This is not news to anyone who follows Buzz’s Dozen as the sale of Tagamet in Greater Milwaukee is up 75% with all these “so close but yet so far” games.  The boys really stepped up against Syracuse and are learning how to finish off opponents.  However, our defensive efficiency still was not great (1.08) against the Orange, especially in the 2nd half where SU shot a blistering 68.2%.  The outcome was favorable this weekend, but the symptoms of the patient are still present.

As a fan, I have always been most interested in strategy of coaches more than other aspect of the game.  The Big East is the #1 competitive conference in the land, but the ability and creativity of the coaches are legendary.  On top of that, the schedule and pressure are grueling with quick turnarounds, packed houses and national TV audiences.  Word of a team or player strength or weakness travels quickly in today’s digital world.  Being curious, I dove a little deeper into the advance stats on the internet to see what an opposing coach might see about MU that maybe isn’t so apparent by perusing the box score.

Beyond the Averages

Taking a step back, we discussed previously how Buzz uses his defense—like Lovie Smith’s in football-- to limit an opponent’s offense by pressuring for turnovers at pinch points in order to feed the energy of MU’s offensive juggernaut.  One way to statistically define energy is by looking at the number of possessions.  Last season, with MU’s make-up, Buzz wanted to limit possessions.  This season, he wants to increase that energy--which is more his stated natural philosophy.  To delve deeper, I took a look at each of our games to see how this looks in numbers.

First, I segmented games from this season into above average possession games (>69 per game) and those at/below the average.  Here is what I found:
  • MU is 7-2 in above average possession games.
  • MU is 7-6 in games at or below that average.
  • MU’s offensive efficiency in both segments of the games is almost exactly the same (1.16 vs. 1.17)
  • MU defensive efficiency in fast paced games is 0.89, while average to slower paced games the statistic is 1.10.  Ah, the magic bean: “Slow MU down and you can break them down!”
More so, in faster paced games, MU’s opponents assist less and turn the rock over at a higher rate (0.90 assist to turnover ratio vs. 1.36), and their opponents’ offensive (28% vs. 36%) and defensive (58% vs. 68%) rebounding rates are lower.  This is further “proof in numbers” of how offensive energy is so critical in Buzz’s defensive philosophy this season—and why coaches are trying to slow MU down, especially with adjustments after MU has jumped to leads.

Buzz has always stressed a highly efficient offensive philosophy, predicated on paint touches.  What did this offensive-defensive difference look like last season when MU wanted a slower paced game to fight starter attrition—with this leading to a record number of close games?  The answer:  the same.  While the game possession average was down (65), fast and slow/average paced games saw MU with similar levels of offensive efficiency, but MU’s defensive efficiency was much lower (better) in faster paced games at 96.0 vs. 104.2 in slower grinders.

So, the chess game between coaches will continue:  Brey stressing his “Burn Offense”, Pitino with the switching zones and the three quarters trap, Boeheim with the 2-3 zone, Calhoun slowing down Walker and putting their younglings in a position to score by working the shot clock.  Upcoming, Nova likes a faster paced game as does Providence, but the remainder of the teams on the schedule like to take the air out of ball or are even paced.  Buzz will try to feed the offensive vortex from the get-go.

My advice:  Try Tum’s if the Tagamet is sold out.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/01/guest-post-marquette-pace-and-rest-of.html

Henry Sugar

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • There are no shortcuts
    • Cracked Sidewalks
First, this is great.

Now, Blackheart and I traded some PM's last night about this.  I was supposed to incorporate it into the post but got distracted by something shiny.  I ran a regression analysis on defensive efficiency and pace.  It's statistically significant to the 99% level.

Coefficients
Intercept (206); Pace (-1.53)

The magic number of possessions is around 70.

Pace / Defensive Efficiency
58   117.6
65   106.9
68   102.3
69   100.8
70   99.2
72   96.2

However, this model doesn't always work.  The pace for the 2H of the Syracuse game was faster than the 1H, and the defensive efficiency got worse.  Still, it's a good rule of thumb that appears to be worth following.
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

dsfire

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Is it possible to adjust the defensive efficiencies to account for the teams we've played so far?  By my count, MU's conference opponents' average offensive efficiency - in all conference games, not just the ones against MU - is 105.0, while the average for the two teams with the best defensive efficiencies (Cincy and WVU) are 101.9 and 102.6, respectively.

Obviously, the fact that our withering defense is among those that our opponents have faced plays into that, but there's something to be said for the fact that we've only played one game against the six least efficient offenses so far.

Henry Sugar

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • There are no shortcuts
    • Cracked Sidewalks
dsfire, how do you mean?  I'm not quite certain how to link your question with Blackheart's post, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. 

tangent warning

Opponent (Predicted efficiency, Actual efficiency, better/worse)
West Virginia (112.7, 114.5, -1.8)
Rutgers   (103.1, 106.6, -3.5)
Pittsburgh (119.6, 141.1, -21.5)
Notre Dame   (113.9, 90.1, 23.8)
Louisville   (110.2, 92.2, 18.0)
DePaul   (96.6, 88.3, 8.3)
Notre Dame   (113.9, 137.7, -23.8)
Connecticut (112.3, 106.2, 6.1)
Syracuse   (112.6, 107.4, 5.2)

Without getting too much into it (handwaving), you could predict what efficiency each conference opponent should have had and then compare against the actual. 

Looking at it this way, one could say that regardless of opponent, MU's defense was performing worse than expected for the first three games, and has been better than expected the past six games (@ND notwithstanding).
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

rocky_warrior

  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Interesting that ND was exactly +/-23.8. Had we only let them be average for both games, looks like we would have gone 2-0 instead of 1-1.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
Sorry late coming in...I just will add that two of the BE games in green that Henry mentioned were fast paced:   DePaul (71 possessions) and UL (76) (well, UL was until MU decided to slow it down--swallow a Tagamet).  Obviously, the BE is another beast and we have fewer observations so far this season, but MU usually makes our opponents better offensively (especially in slower paced games). Last season, MU was 12-5 in faster paced games. 

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17310
So the secret to beating MU is to run either ND's burn, UW's swing, or some other offense that makes our defense defend until broken down.    In the process, our highly efficient offense is denied opportunities to score.    Good stuff, gents, thanks. 
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

dsfire

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
dsfire, how do you mean?  I'm not quite certain how to link your question with Blackheart's post, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. 

tangent warning

Opponent (Predicted efficiency, Actual efficiency, better/worse)
West Virginia (112.7, 114.5, -1.8)
Rutgers   (103.1, 106.6, -3.5)
Pittsburgh (119.6, 141.1, -21.5)
Notre Dame   (113.9, 90.1, 23.8)
Louisville   (110.2, 92.2, 18.0)
DePaul   (96.6, 88.3, 8.3)
Notre Dame   (113.9, 137.7, -23.8)
Connecticut (112.3, 106.2, 6.1)
Syracuse   (112.6, 107.4, 5.2)

Without getting too much into it (handwaving), you could predict what efficiency each conference opponent should have had and then compare against the actual. 

Looking at it this way, one could say that regardless of opponent, MU's defense was performing worse than expected for the first three games, and has been better than expected the past six games (@ND notwithstanding).
Yeah - I was really aimed at the tied for second worst defensive efficiency in conference.  Obviously our defense hasn't been good, but I think it's better than what the raw efficiency numbers say (compared to other conference teams) due to unbalanced schedules.  Then again, we're still 4th-to-last in kenpom's adjusted defensive efficiencies based upon the whole season, so... perhaps not.

I wasn't addressing the pace comparison at all - which, I suppose, is kind of missing the point of the post.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
What I think dsfire is trying to say, is that we have played some very efficient offenses, which impacts our defense.  As the schedule continues to play less efficient offenses, which should naturally raise our defensive stats.

Put another way, teams on the rest of schedule won't be able to exploit our biggest weakness as well as the teams we have already played.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Henry Sugar

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • There are no shortcuts
    • Cracked Sidewalks
What I think dsfire is trying to say, is that we have played some very efficient offenses, which impacts our defense.  As the schedule continues to play less efficient offenses, which should naturally raise our defensive stats.

Put another way, teams on the rest of schedule won't be able to exploit our biggest weakness as well as the teams we have already played.

We were questioning the defense before conference play started.  The CS post below was written after the WVU game, so we've dropped from 70-ish to 80-ish.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/01/is-defense-marquettes-achilles-heel.html

Do I think that the defense will get better?  We'll face worse offenses, and the trends say that the defense is performing better than expected.  So maybe we'll get back to being ranked in the 70's again?  Or maybe if we keep pressing the pace the defense will get hot at the right time.
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

CTWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
This is one of those cases where the math passes the eye test.  It seems apparent to me that if you are careful to take care of the ball and are patient against us, eventually we'll break down and leave someone wide open.
Calvin:  I'm a genius.  But I'm a misunderstood genius. 
Hobbes:  What's misunderstood about you?
Calvin:  Nobody thinks I'm a genius.

westcoastwarrior

  • Registered User
  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
So Georgetown's Princeton Offense is not going to be a good match-up for us...even on our home court

We R Final Four

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5074
We play at Georgetown on 2/13.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
So Georgetown's Princeton Offense is not going to be a good match-up for us...even on our home court

Gtown is averaging 64 possessions in BE play...so yes, not an ideal match-up as their guards can control tempo, especially on their home court.  They are having trouble with their backline, though, so maybe JFB and Jae can help exploit their weaknesses and be more disruptive on D. 

MUfan12

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
So Georgetown's Princeton Offense is not going to be a good match-up for us...even on our home court

They don't run that offense like they have in past years, mainly because they don't have a big who can pass out of the high post as effectively.

They shoot a lot of threes, which worries me.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
Returning to this...

  • This game saw 65 possessions tonight, so Wright slowed the tempo and banged it inside.
  • MU's defensive efficiency was 115.4, above Nova's average of 111.8

Slow MU down and you can break them down!

Henry Sugar

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
  • There are no shortcuts
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Nova's average is 115.6, so this was right inline with their average.  I had an expected value of 113, so the defense was just slightly worse than expected.

Following the regression model, 65 possessions should end up with a defensive efficiency of 106.  Worse than predicted there.

For all my disparaging of FTR, this was the difference in the game.  MU won the turnover battle, eFG% was basically a wash (48% to 48%), and OR% was tied too.  Nova had a 69% to 24% advantage on FTR.

A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9777
Nova's average is 115.6, so this was right inline with their average.  I had an expected value of 113, so the defense was just slightly worse than expected.

Following the regression model, 65 possessions should end up with a defensive efficiency of 106.  Worse than predicted there.

For all my disparaging of FTR, this was the difference in the game.  MU won the turnover battle, eFG% was basically a wash (48% to 48%), and OR% was tied too.  Nova had a 69% to 24% advantage on FTR.



Statsheet has Nova's average a bit lower at 111.8...but yes, banging it inside attrited us and got Nova to the line.  Yarou and Pena killed MU on the line as a result: 16-19 between them. 

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2011/02/02/marquette-70-villanova-75

 

feedback